Delhi District Court
Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui vs M/S Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd on 16 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 114 OF 2021
CNR NO. DLST01-002939-2021
IN THE MATTER OF
Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui,
S/o Sh. Jamaluddin Siddiqui,
House No. 246, Lane No. 4,
Opp. Shiv Mandir, Haiderpur Road,
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088. ........ Revisionist
Versus
M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Surender Vasisht,
7/3, Vasisht House Begumpur,
Kalu Sarai, New Delhi-110017. ........ Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.03.2021
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 24.05.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07.2022
ORDER
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose of the present revision petition filed against Impugned Order dated 05.08.2020 in Complaint Case No. 245/2015 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) titled as Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Seven Wonders Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 1 of 8 pronounced by Ld. MM-01 (South)/NI Act.
2. Having been summoned in the above-said complaint case u/s 138 NI Act vide Order dated 15.03.2019, the revisionist- accused sought dropping of proceedings against him before Ld. Trial Court. Arguments on the question of dropping of proceedings were heard and the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2020 was pronounced.
3. The Trial Court Record shows that a formal application u/s 258 Cr.P.C. was not moved and oral contention was raised by the revisionist-accused. From the Impugned Order, it can be gathered that stopping of proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C. was prayed for by the revisionist-accused on the ground that the three cheques in question all dated 02.08.2018 worth Rs 02 Lacs only, Rs 01 Lacs only and Rs 1.50 Lacs only respectively had been issued by 'Seven Wonders International', a proprietorship concern whereas the Statutory Legal Demand Notice had been issued against Seven Wonders Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. The complaint case was also filed against 'Seven Wonders Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor Zahid Siddiqui'. It was further contended that the cheques in question were issued against a time barred debt and, therefore, it cannot be said that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.
4. Vide the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2020, Ld. Trial CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 2 of 8 Court observed that the defence of the accused that the cheques had been issued against a time barred debt was a question of trial. It was further observed that the case was at an initial stage and an opportunity was yet to be given to the complainant to explain the discrepancy in the name of the accused in the complaint and the name of the drawer on the said cheques. It was held by Ld. Trial Court as follows :
"Before delving into the merits of this contention of the accused, the maintainability of the same needs to be addressed. At this juncture, it is imperative to mention that no provision for dropping of proceedings has been contemplated in the entire scheme of NI Act, as such. As far as Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C. for short) is concerned, proceedings against the accused in a matter can be terminated by way of discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. and by way of stopping of proceedings under section 258 Cr.P.C. Having said so, it may be noted however, that both these provisions are inapplicable to proceedings under section 138 of NI Act, as discussed hereinafter."
5. Aggrieved by this Order, present revision petition has been filed primarily on the grounds that debt or liability in respect of which the cheques in question have been shown to be issued against was time barred and that the Statutory Legal Demand Notice had been issued to the company i.e. Seven Wonders Entertainment Pvt.
CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 3 of 8 Ltd. whereas the cheque had been issued by a proprietorship concern, namely, Seven Wonders International.
6. The revision petition has been opposed on the ground that dropping of proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C. was not permissible in a complaint case u/s 138 NI Act.
7. I have heard the arguments and have perused the records carefully including the Trial Court Record and written submissions.
8. The issues such as whether or not the debt in question was time barred and whether or not Seven Wonders International and Seven Wonders Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. have the same bank account and other such related issues are all a matter of trial. However, the primarily issue before this Court is whether the prayer itself of the revisionist-accused for stopping of the proceedings in the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act was maintainable or not.
9. It is noted that it is not the summoning Order dated 15.03.2019 which has been called into question by the revisionist- accused but it is the Order dated 05.08.2020 which is the subject matter of the present revision petition. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the issue whether Ld. Trial Court could have discharged the revisionist-accused or stopped the proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C. in the present case.
CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 4 of 8
10. Section 258 Cr.P.C. falls in Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. titled as 'Trial of Summons-Cases by Magistrates'. It provides as follows :
"258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.-- In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."
11. The bare reading of Section 258 Cr.P.C. would show that it is applicable to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint.
12. In Order dated 16.04.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 02 of 2020, Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881 (2021 SCC OnLine SC 325), the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :
"24.The upshot of the CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 5 of 8 above discussion leads us to the following conclusions:
1) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial.
2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.
4) We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code.
5) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 6 of 8 same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.
6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint.
7) Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments (supra) do not lay down correct law. To conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the Act empowering the Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 10.03.2021.
8) All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 7 of 8 by the Committee."
13. The above-mentioned directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India leave no doubt regarding the law on point of applicability of Section 258 Cr.P.C. to complaints u/s 138 NI Act. This provision is not applicable to the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act. Ld. Trial Court also does not have the power to review or recall the issue of summons in complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act.
14. The scheme of Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. related to Trial of Summons-Cases by Magistrates shows that there is no provision of discharging the accused as well.
15. In view of the above discussed legal provision, Ld. Trial Court has aptly rejected the prayer of the revisionist-accused seeking dropping / stopping of proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C. The Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2020 or any ground to interfere with the same. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16th DAY OF JULY 2022 (Vrinda Kumari) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 114/2021 Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui Vs M/s Vasisht Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 16.07.2022 Pg No. 8 of 8